4 ms·
> Everyone wants to call their stuff open source but have strings attached. The term 'Open Source' is well-defined and includes licenses like the one redict pi
by wyldfire 3y ago
> Everyone wants to call their stuff open source but have strings attached.
The term 'Open Source' is well-defined and includes licenses like the one redict picked (LGPL 3.0). It is incorrect to try and lump this in with source-available licenses that are IMO anathema to Open Source.
- endisneigh 3y agoThe OSI doesn’t represent everyone. It’s simply a fact that MIT for instance allows things like Redict and this discussion to take place, as well as other things. It is maximally permissive.
- wyldfire 3y ago> The OSI doesn’t represent everyone. Sure, sure. But the term Open Source has a meaning. Ultimately terms have meaning based on their usage in the language. For 'Open Source', its usage happens to reflect the same meaning enshrined by OSI. > It is maximally permissive. It appears that there are now several redis forks, with several licenses. For the most part: everybody wins. If you prefer the MIT license, maybe you would prefer to contribute to the BSD-licensed Valkey. And if not, you can fork redis too.
- xorcist 3y agoThey don't, but they were established for a singular reason, to shepherd the term "open source". A term that was chosen on terms of having little previous use. They did not succeed with the trademark application because the term was deemed too descriptive, not from a lack of trying. So we should probably respect their term if we want to use it. There are plenty of other terms you can choose instead, such as "permissively licensed software" which also has a de facto established meaning.